1.4x or 2x multiplier?

[arith]

I've paid for a second hand canon 70-200mm f4L USM from MPB and it will complete my collection of lenses with a multiplier.

The 1.4x should be sufficient but I noticed a new 2x MK III.

Also I was planning on getting the HOYA HD UV0 at considerably less than the price of the filter I use on my Tamron because I don't believe the Canon lens is brilliant with lens flare anyhow, so I won't be pointing it at the sun.

Is Hoya HD as good as they say?

I cannot stop down beyond f7.1 or don't want to, is the new 2x MK III worth considering since I was thinking more sport than wildlife, aircraft rather than birds,

[LeoLeo]

Steve,

1.4x is -1 stop and 2x is -2 stops
For 1.4x on crop Canons you will have 1.4 x 1.6 x (70 : 200)= 156.8:640 (112:480 on 70-300 without extenders)
I don't know for sports, but aircrafts shows are in the middle of the day, sunny day or in the best case scenario, dull light, where the -2 stops are not a big impediment.
At my last airshow, I've asked several photographers what extenders they have, and they were with 2x, but with 70-200 2.8.

Leo

[rpcrowe]

If you are shooting with 1.6x cameras a 2x extender will cost you two stops and you will lose your autofocus ability when using the 70-200mm f/4L IS. The 1D (series) Canon cameras will autofocus with a lens that has f/8 as its maximum aperture. I don't know about the 5D and 5Dii.

In my opinion, Canon dropped the ball big-time when they did not incorporate autofocus at f/8 in the 7D camera. That way, I could use the 1.4x TC on my 400mm f/5.6L and retain autofocus. Oh well, Canon tends to drop balls. They did it when they introduced the 270EX as a replacement for the 220EX. This little flash would have been great as a slave. They realized their error and introduced the 270EX ii which does have slave capability. However as an owner of the 270EX, that doesn't help me a hill of beans. Maybe we will see a 7Dii or an 8D with AF capability at f/8. Nice but, it won't help present 7D owners.

I have used a borrowed 2x extender once on the F4L and I didn't like the results. I lost my AF and the IQ was deteriorated beyond what I consider acceptable for an L lens.

I have heard very good things about the combination of the latest 2x TC and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii lens. But that is an entirely different and very costly setup.

However, I have used the Mark-I 1.4x TC on my old non IS 70-200mm f/4L and it did fine. I presently occasionally use it on my 70-200mm f/4L IS model and although I can notice a very slight slowing of auto focus; the AF and IQ is still quite acceptable. I will often carry the 1.4x TC on trips JUST IN CASE I NEED A BIT LONGER FOCAL LENGTH. My standard travel kit is the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras plus the 1.4X TC.

To tell you the truth, I haven't used the 1.4x TC on my 70-200mm f/4L IS in quite a while. However, I do use it fairly often on my 300mm f/4L IS lens and it does quite well with no GREAT slowing of AF or deterioration of IQ. There is still a bit of both but, the results are quite acceptable.

I have an older Hoya multicoated filter and the older ones seemed a bit more difficult to clean. I have heard that they have changed the coating to address that problem but, I have no experience with newer models. Most of my filters are B&W except for a Calumet CPL which I was told by a friend who works at Calumet was outsourced to B&W. The Hoya I own is good enough that I have no plans to replace it.

Have fun with your 70-200mm f/4L. It is a great lens.

[arith]

Steve,

1.4x is -1 stop and 2x is -2 stops
For 1.4x on crop Canons you will have 1.4 x 1.6 x (70 : 200)= 156.8:640 (112:480 on 70-300 without extenders)
I don't know for sports, but aircrafts shows are in the middle of the day, sunny day or in the best case scenario, dull light, where the -2 stops are not a big impediment.
At my last airshow, I've asked several photographers what extenders they have, and they were with 2x, but with 70-200 2.8.

Leo

Cheers Leo; I think that means I will stick with the 1.4.

[arith]

If you are shooting with 1.6x cameras a 2x extender will cost you two stops and you will lose your autofocus ability when using the 70-200mm f/4L IS. The 1D (series) Canon cameras will autofocus with a lens that has f/8 as its maximum aperture. I don't know about the 5D and 5Dii.

In my opinion, Canon dropped the ball big-time when they did not incorporate autofocus at f/8 in the 7D camera. That way, I could use the 1.4x TC on my 400mm f/5.6L and retain autofocus. Oh well, Canon tends to drop balls. They did it when they introduced the 270EX as a replacement for the 220EX. This little flash would have been great as a slave. They realized their error and introduced the 270EX ii which does have slave capability. However as an owner of the 270EX, that doesn't help me a hill of beans. Maybe we will see a 7Dii or an 8D with AF capability at f/8. Nice but, it won't help present 7D owners.

I have used a borrowed 2x extender once on the F4L and I didn't like the results. I lost my AF and the IQ was deteriorated beyond what I consider acceptable for an L lens.

I have heard very good things about the combination of the latest 2x TC and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii lens. But that is an entirely different and very costly setup.

However, I have used the Mark-I 1.4x TC on my old non IS 70-200mm f/4L and it did fine. I presently occasionally use it on my 70-200mm f/4L IS model and although I can notice a very slight slowing of auto focus; the AF and IQ is still quite acceptable. I will often carry the 1.4x TC on trips JUST IN CASE I NEED A BIT LONGER FOCAL LENGTH. My standard travel kit is the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras plus the 1.4X TC.

To tell you the truth, I haven't used the 1.4x TC on my 70-200mm f/4L IS in quite a while. However, I do use it fairly often on my 300mm f/4L IS lens and it does quite well with no GREAT slowing of AF or deterioration of IQ. There is still a bit of both but, the results are quite acceptable.

I have an older Hoya multicoated filter and the older ones seemed a bit more difficult to clean. I have heard that they have changed the coating to address that problem but, I have no experience with newer models. Most of my filters are B&W except for a Calumet CPL which I was told by a friend who works at Calumet was outsourced to B&W. The Hoya I own is good enough that I have no plans to replace it.

Have fun with your 70-200mm f/4L. It is a great lens.

I have to have autofocus on a long lens Richard, can't do without it. It isn't an IS but anyway the way I expose doesn't introduce a lot of noise and I can get down to 1/160 at 200mm and with 200 iso showing no less definition than the average shot.

So I don't need IS and can't afford it anyway.

I looked at B+W and thought they are a tad expensive; as expensive as the HOYA I use on my Tamron, (which is chipped can you believe that).

The only virtue of the expense is to be able to point directly at the sun without much extra flare if any, but I'm not planning on doing that. Cheers Richard.

[inkista]

I have a few B+W filters. If you need superb build quality, then they're definitely top of the line. But for UV, I tend to stick with Hoya HMCs. I trash UVs and the coatings on same often enough that paying more doesn't work for me, and the lenstip test pretty much tells me there's not that much difference between the HMC, Pro, and S-HMC (and B+W or Heliopan). ymmv.

[spngr311]

Since I couldn't live without AF, 1.4x for the 70-200 f/4.

Richard, as far as the image quality, have you had the lens and the teleconverter calibrated/adjusted? My coworker (an excellent photographer (http://www.mikehamblin.com/)) had an issue with his 1.4x (or maybe his 2x, can't remember) and his 70-200 f2.8 since they were new. He tried another photographer's teleconverter on his lens and everything was fine. He sent the lens AND the teleconverter to Canon and now it is good. He was mainly doing this because his 400 f5.6 doesn't have IS but his 70-200 f2.8 does.

[arith]

Fantastic chart Kathy: I've got a 72mm super hmc pro 1 but that is even worse than the pro which is half the price. I will get a Hoya HD though because of specially hardened glass and half price at amazon.

[arith]

Since I couldn't live without AF, 1.4x for the 70-200 f/4.

I can't do without AF for a telephoto lens Rob; it may sound stupid but I can't see the difference with my wide angle pointed at a distant object focused at less than a metre and focused on infinity, I always use hyperfocal distance and the numbers on the lens. One of the joys of photography is seeing the scene sharp on my display.

The long lens takes different types of photo's from portrait to fast action, such as an aircraft taking off and passing closer than 200 metres, for this I need AI servo with High Speed multiple shots.

[rpcrowe]

Kathy...

That is a neat chart but, I am not sure it actually pertains to digital photography in any great degree. Here is a quote from the explanation:

"Why would we need a UV filter which cuts out the same amount of UV radiation as a regular glass? However this filter can be useful for people, who want to protect their lens from the outer factors."

My answer to the first question is the second statement, "However this filter can be useful for people, who want to protect their lens from the outer factors." The only reason I would use a UV filter on a lens for a digital camera is for lens protection.

In the days of film, a UV blocking filter provided quite a bit of IQ help because the film was generally quite sensitive to UV radiation. We used UV or Skylight filters for image enhancement as well as lens protection. The first thing many photographers would do for a new lens is to buy a UV or skylight filter. However, the digital sensor is not particularly sensitive to UV radiation. Most digital photographers use UV filters only as protection for their lens. When the filter only is used as protection, the UV blocking or transmission (which it appears that much of the rating is based on) really doesn't matter. My personal criteria for UV filter quality are:

1. Lack of image deterioration
2. Flare resistance

I may have read the test criteria wrong. But, I would like a test showing MTF values for lenses equipped with filters as opposed to the same lenses without filters. I would also guess that these values might be for specific lens/filter combinations.

If I am wrong in this statement, please correct me. I have never seen any tests which include MTF values of lenses with and without certain filters. If my lens produces a certain MTF value if used without a filter and produces other values when wearing various filters - this would give me the information i would need to decide:

1. Which filter I should use for protection
2. If I should use any filter at all

[arith]

Cheers Richard you are right; but another factor is worked in to the results, the price: they say my filter (HOYA)came first overall but the price put it third. So B+W might not be so bad then.

I just been looking at the figures for the lens again and if it is similar to the IS version then I don't even have to think about aperture, across the range it exceeds the specs of the camera.

[arith]

Just a quick one to check out functions; it looks sharp to me but this is acutance sharpened. I noticed some Canon stuff started working in DPP and CA looks ok.

Wished I new how to use the Canon stuff and the cap is impossible to get on and off with the hood on.

[DTruex]

I have a Tamron SP 2.0x extender. I have wished many times I went with the 1.4x. The 2x is great with my 50mm prime lens. It is not that great with any telephoto lens. If I have to do it again I would buy the 1.4x and crop and re-size to enlarge the photo a bit more.

[rpcrowe]

IMO Canon side-pinch lens caps are not easy to use with lens hoods. I have replaced all of my Canon lens caps with Chinese knock-off caps which are of the center-pinch variety. Unless you have the long skinny fingers of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas", center pinch caps are far easier to use.

I bought a 300mm f/4L IS lens which was in mint shape except for a cracked lens cap. I was able to replace the damaged OEM cap with a Chinese center pinch cap AND replace all my other side-pinch Canon caps with the easier to use Chinese models for the price of the Canon cap alone.

I often use OPTECH Hood Hats as a substitute for lens caps. The Hood Hat is very quick and easy to remove and replace and fits right over the hood. That way, I have the hood mounted for quick shooting but, am able to zip off the protective Hood Hat quickly and easily and stick it in the pocket of my photo vest. The inside of the Hood Hat tends not to pick up lint, etc. from the pocket as the inside of the cap often does.

[Colin Southern]

IMO Canon side-pinch lens caps are not easy to use with lens hoods. I have replaced all of my Canon lens caps with Chinese knock-off caps which are of the center-pinch variety. Unless you have the long skinny fingers of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas", center pinch caps are far easier to use.

That's interesting Richard,

Personally, I remove the cap before mounting the hood - just wondering why you'd do it the other way around?

[arith]

I bought a pinch cap but still can't get it on I'm just used to replacing the cap between shots but now I just have to leave it off.